New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-09-14
FOR AND AGAINST SHARP.
ARGUMENTS ON APPEAL HEARD AT LAST.

| the Supreme Court ordered by Governor HILL ai'er
Que Adjournment held yesterday Tor the pu'pSsJI
Of listening to arguments tor and against 10 . NO,
in the case OF Jacob sharp. fhe OCCASION was NV
-racterized by auy formal demonstration OF u"n9
nal lnt6re,. but rather by the deep 'h'ehs.y
rounding mom-G tous issue ana py '"o av, Of
careful elaborate concentrated enor's on INC 60.
| both Mr.. Sharp's lawyers anu VI
! new and his associates .,a
w Ronrke Cochran made the strong appeal OF 'sS
a.s IN babaIf of Sharp. He rut forth decidediy
ingenious piea presenting the points IN oena' OF ms
client strongly, and ccnsurng the rulings OF 'ust'oo
Barrett and rbe position taken by the Dstr'ctAttor
new Mr.. Cochran speaks rapidly and binds bis arsn
ment together with lucdity which u charming even
from the opposition point OF view lie spoke TOT '"o
hours and was closely listened 10 by Gro 8ded court
room. Mr.. Stieknev followed Mr. Cochran Inc con-
trast between the two Is great Mr. Stiekpey IL
angular while Mr.. Cochran always suggests rotun-
dIiy.
The cause of the people was assigned to Delaney
NicsIl, the main. The brilliant assistant OF MI.
MARITIME does not pretend to the unetuons VerDosity
and the glib logic of Mr.. Cochran. lie made no pre-
tence to orstory, but relied upon the cod logic OF
facs He put forth his points tor the intrinsic vaiae
and spoke dispassionaiely
Presiding Justice Van Brunt aud Justices 6rady,
Daniels and Bartlett took their seats soon aiter ~
A. m. The General Term room was hlled OUT NOT
overerow ded here was an abundant sprihRnng vi
young lawyers. District Attorney Martihe anu MI.
Cockras sat elbow TO ebow ut the centre oil tno
|
sempie the other 5y Mr.. Stickney and Jonn T.. far-
cons Just behind Mr.. Cochran sat the venerable e1-
Judge Fullerton. He carried his lett hand TO hls ear
and lister ed closely to Mr.. Cockrans argument ar.
Parsons turned front view to his colleagues anu
followed the argument with the zeal OF novice
Warden Heating watched the proceedings as also did
Drank j. Dupiguac, of Mr. Richmonds counsel.
The usual preliminary sk.rmlsh marked tue opening
hour OF the session. Mr. Sckrey began the dag with
the ourstion whether counsel were to be held closely
,,o MT 0f
| should be allowed for the argument or appeal III
was DECIDED that the appellants should have three
and oue-hali hours and the people the rest oil the
day to 8 D. m, with one bour int, Emission.
Mr. Nicoll then urged that the points raised regard
ing Jurors who did serve on the jury should ne
stricken out of the appeal. Justice Van Brunt an
nounced that while such poots Odd not form part oil
the judgnent role they still remained part OF the pro-
ceedings ~
{ Thereupon Mr. Cochran began his argument His
openiuy was subdued. He gradually warmed up aud
hem gnant smile overs ore,d his face throughout MS
address, He had two poihts TO MAKE ne saiu' hrs~
that there was sufficient evidence to convict Mr.
sharp; second, that the evidence admlttet was
l,rgalv ineomuetent The 300 900 raised by the
Broadway sod seventh Avenue Railroad Company.
in 1854 Mr. Cochran declared was placed IN the
hands of Messrs. Kerr add FoShsy. aud there was
inlerential proof that this sum was changed mo
bank notes or large denomination. The question was
whether Mr.. sharp aware OF or cOnniyed at any
bribery 1t had been proved that Mr.. Shsrp was IN
terestei in the Broadway Surt,ce Railroad that be
was merely director who voted or inc pooo'ooV
bond issue that Powell had sworn That Mr..
Sharp had said that the Aldermen were fixed, but
tina, Powell had been unable to interpret Mr.. Shsrps
| meaning The TACT that Mr.. Richmond had az the
Civ Hail. received With an oatr Mr. shaips messsn-
ger Devr!ng the Aidermanc resolution LOT bily
MoloDey lad no bearing as the document Wa Pc
Justrce Van Brunt asked for dates in the money
! transactions referred to-
| onO, llv v.is al foro In
creased facilities raised IN May, 1854 The sums
when Mr. sharp handled. coming from tho $4,000 tn
| The 500, OOp replaced whatever was done
with originally. ana with the 100000 Mr. sharp nad
nothing TO do.
! Mr. Cochran urged that the Broadway and Seventh
| Avenue Railroad Company 1ad flO,OOOocO interest
in the Broadway surface Company. that MI. Sharp
la small in crest in the Seventh Avenue company
| and was only director who voted tor the SoOOOOO
| issue As Tor Alderman Pearson, he was not one OF
! Tho combine" and there was no evidence that he
/ had been corrupted Alderman Miller nsd sworn
that he did not know Tor what purpose The So,ooo
mad been given to bin. But, pressed by Mr.. Nieoll
Miller had declared uis belief simply That tue money
| came from the Broad way Surface Railroad Company
The Pottle testimony and the visits OF Moleney with
! constituted the case against Mr. sharp. he urged
| that new trial should be had tD- character ~
tue jury, If nothing else" Eleven OF the twelve had
| formed an opinion before entering the box
a do not think exclaimed Mr.. Cochran, /" thst it
should be construed be the intent OF the Legislst-
uIe that but prejudiced Jurors should be chosen
| IL ia no use to minced names This paced Jury
Under such Interpretation OF the law, operating Tor
tie ueence we'll the prosecution, tho prisoner Is
| lett absolutely at the mercy vi The cur
Mr. Cock ran urged that Justice Barrett In ad-
mjttnp the Pottle testimony, had proceeded on false
70, hrberr Of The Aldermen. The proof rela
tive to Canadan exile should s'so be eIcinded Mr..
Cochran concluded his shnre OF the apors of the day
With exhaustive historical treatment OF the com
| mon law doctrine bearing on the use OF witnesss
| Testimony as against himself, declaring that Mr.
SharD,s Testimony before tho Senate Railroad Com
| tea Oh ul moi
| I. mako the single point" said Mr.. Cochran, Athat
the Committee had the absolute night 10 COIN
pei Mr. sharp answer aDy question II pleased anu
that his tesomny was not ad uissble on his trial."
| At l235 Mr.. Stickr ey took up the argument 10
show as be pat IT, tina. M SaSrp naa ecu no., %seu
| shown that he had any connection. tie spoke win
| even more carnestness and feeling than usual. not
| marks h.s customary utterauces lie vent over in
| Dart Mr. Cockrans points on Powell. Pottle and
| others and sought to show the irrelevancy OF Their
| testimony In conoiusion M. Stiokney protested
hat the alleged previous crimes OF this old man oil
seventy should not be adduced tor his nvicton on
Justice Barrett honest in bis rulings. but that con-
| sidcratons and remarks had been admitted all
through the trial which should not been uttered
! even by &C unseI. Mr.. Stickney submitted that Mr.
Sharp haa not had lair trial.
It was after p. m. when Mr.. Nco began his ad-
diess. He took up the books OF tho Broadway and
| Seventh Avenue Railroad Company a. bearing on
| the $500 900 issue OF bonds. When in 1888 Mr..
sharp in funds he said the ontres OF the Use OF
| the $500, 600 had been shown Ia the books Nr
S,coll dwelt sa,iricaIy upon Mr.. Sharp's forgetiu
OF his disposition OF large sums OF money and
| traced from point point the ins and 0nts oil the
| various sums in which Mt. sharp and the company
were interested OF course" said he "there was
no direct proof that kerr and Fosaay hsndrd sharp
| $40O,0uv, which, through an intermediary,
| 10000 found its way TO Keenan, and DE Lacey
and Full .raa" Mr.. Ncol declared that the defence
! In the case was merely argument on the evidence
OF the prosecution. He made the striking point rs TO
the jury that she defence hat made an exception to
| only one Juror. Mr. Clark, No 4. This disposed of
the claim OF a packed jury, ho argued. Mr.. NIcoll
then took up the points made by Messrs Cochran and
| S.ckpey urging that the Pottle, Pearson and
! Miller testimony was adm:ss BILE The defence had
made the Issue Of intent in the Of fugraf and
npon this they had beea taken up As for many OF
the suggested by Mr.. Sticknsy they would be